Re: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

(cc's snipped)

Jonathan and Vint --

         The marching orders of the ALAG (for folks who haven't been 
following closely, this is ICANN's *latest* advisory group on the 
at-large), as set out in 
<http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/status-report-24jul02.htm> 
(penultimatre paragraph), are to craft implementation details for an 
at-large advisory committee, "building on the Blueprint for Reform and the 
Board's subsequent Bucharest Resolution."  The Blueprint rejected an 
at-large supporting organization of the sort Danny describes, so it would 
be beyond the ALAG's charter to push for one now.  I think it's 
mystification to suggest that there should be no public debate on this 
issue until the ALAG releases its proposals for Blueprint 
implementation.  On the contrary, it's very much in order for Danny to ask 
exactly *why* the Blueprint (and the Board, adopting the Blueprint) 
rejected the ALSC's recommendation for an at-large supporting 
organization.  After all, we never have received an answer to that question.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
Professor of Law, Wayne State University
weinberg@msen.com

At 10:49 AM 8/16/2002 -0400, Jonathan Cohen wrote:
>Danny ,
>you and i have talked about this before in 'general terms',but I would be
>pleased to clarify "my" thinking on the subject.It would be just that "my
>thinking" not that of the Board or any other Member.However, I think it
>appropriate to allow the ERC to finish its work and the ALAG to be looked at
>'objectively' by those who have undertaken the task.To open up this dialogue
>now undermines that effort. If ultimately it recommends an ALSO,or,if after
>some experience or debate that is considered a wise decision...I have every
>confidence it will be made. Other Constituencies that are 'arguably' better
>represented in ICANN (Some people feel the current "At Large" in ICANN
>consists of a relatively small number of individuals a large % of whom are
>American and that is not necessarily a"constituency' from which one can draw
>much policy comfort on a "global" scale)and which feel they should have an
>SO.  Lets chat in the Fall
>best regards
>Jonathan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com]
>Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:48 AM
>To: DannyYounger@cs.com; ga@dnso.org
>Cc: vcerf@mci.net; apisan@servidor.unam.mx; Amadeu@nominalia.com;
>karl@cavebear.com; k13@nikhef.nl; ivanmc@akwan.com.br; lyman@acm.org;
>jcohen@shapirocohen.com; f.fitzsimmons@att.net; mkatoh@mkatoh.net;
>hans@icann.org; shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr; lynn@icann.org; andy@ccc.de;
>junsec@wide.ad.jp; quaynor@ghana.com; helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de;
>linda@icann.org; NVictory@ntia.doc.gov
>Subject: Re: At-Large Supporting Organization
>
>
>Danny,
>
>The reform committee continues to refine its proposals - I think the general
>perspective is to see how the advisory committee organizes itself before
>making deeper commitments.
>
>vint
>
>At 11:58 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >Hello Vint,
> >
> >Thank you for the prompt response.  I am sure that you understand that an
> >Advisory Committee, while providing opportunities for participation, is not
> >the equivalent of a Supporting Organization in that it cannot elect
> >representatives to the Board.  Is there a particular reason why the Board
>is
> >not amenable to such representation for the At-large community?  The ALSC
> >proposal for such an SO did have a broad base of community support -- the
> >only issue appeared to be the number of directors that it would elect...
> >
> >I can understand your decision to back away from global elections, but I
>find
> >it harder to understand why you would shy away from a representative
> >construct (the Supporting Organization) that has already served the
> >Corporation well.  Perhaps you and your fellow Board members can clarify
>your
> >thinking on this matter.  It certainly would be appreciated.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny
>
>Vint Cerf
>SVP Architecture & Technology
>WorldCom
>22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
>Ashburn, VA 20147
>703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
>703 886 0047 fax
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html